Submitted by Blowin on Fri, 06/21/2019 - 08:01
Talking points worthy of further discussion without devolving into insult.
What’s it going to be fellas? What wins out in the battle of ideas? Science or ill informed personal opinion? Or it perhaps more correctly put as science verses individual or collective political ideology? Or is it science verses zealot like belief in the deeds of the invisible sky guy?
GS, it can only be the science that suits the agenda of the particular reader.
It seemed to be more along the lines of “ bloke who’s had an impressive overview of the reef through his professional interaction with its marine life questions blanket statements from researchers. “
Doesn’t sound anti-science, political or ideological to me.
And I open mindedly asked a scientist currently involved in assessing the health of the reef what he believed was the most serious threat to its health and he replied the Crown of thorns starfish. He said that bleaching was bad and that it also threatened the reef .
Is the death of the reef guaranteed.....no. Science cannot predict this . Accepting this is not anti- science. It’s an acceptance of the limitations of science. Yes , it’s possible to be a firm proponent of empirical assessment ,whilst still being able to remain skeptical of the ability to be able to maintain rigorous empiricism at the extremities of current research techniques ie modelling.
Freeride - Fishing through the pain ! Nice work.
No love for trevally as food ? I’m no huge fan , but fresh fish is fresh food if nothing else is on offer , even a trevermin goes down the hatch if push comes to shove ( trevally / vermin ....geddit ?) . The tropical blue fins aren’t too bad at all .
Mate , a couple of impalings will have you hook-shy of those trebles but don’t downgrade , that’s when you’ll hook that horse of a lifetime only to watch those toy trebles fold like a cardboard sailboat.
Crom laughs at tin trebles https://youtu.be/MKMG-FdCGtM
I'm more than just a little tired of the endless questioning of science when it comes to the climate & environment and yet in any and absolutely every other aspect of our daily lives we all totally, unquestioningly accept the word and work of scientists and engineers.
Universally, where does that come from and who has the most to gain from distorting the truth? scientists or those industries and their political lackeys who have money to make. Don't scientists, as a matter of their daily work, question and test their assumptions and findings to find the errors to improve their work? While non scientists are entitled to query the science they equally need to be careful not to add to the black noise of the denial agenda traceable back to the big oil and the Koch Brothers.
"but the scientists working on the problem weren’t aware that when they were cutting up the COT and throwing them back over the side they usually regenerated in a similar manner to an earth worm. "
Science undergrad son just read that and said "They do realise, that's how starfish work, right? I'm not even a Marine Science major and I know this."
@fitzroy. Fair enough about the quote but then why did you post it? If you post it…… you own it. I would suggest you dig a bit deeper in future. A one minute search would have shown that Dr Jennifer Marohasy is a climate denialist who has previously worked for the Queensland Cane Growers Association and that the IPA has zero credibility on environmental (or other) issues.
I will always call this bullshit out. The fossil fuel industry and conservative “think tanks” have spent hundreds of millions on spreading climate denialism and to deny the environmental impacts of their vested interests. Their success can be measured by the frequency with which their ideas are put forward as legitimate in public forums, private conversations and political advertising.
I assume what you actually wanted to say was something like:
“Despite the critical risks facing the GBR, large sections of it are still in good condition.”
Guy - I question everything. And with good reason. It’s not just science. I don’t immediately assume that authority is omnipotent and neither should you. This doesn’t equate to saying that I believe I know better in a field of which I’m not an expert.
This isn’t Luddism or rejection of science, it’s healthy skepticism.
People are wrong everyday. People make mistakes. Assumed knowledge is disproven . Vested interests control narratives. Ego refuses to accept limitations of insight. Knowledge is exaggerated to gain power . Technology and research increases understanding and alters truths.
You assume that I don’t doubt the work of any field except climate science, whilst I’ve never given you any reason to believe this . I’ve worked alongside teams of engineers and watched as they’ve been incorrect to the tune of tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man hours.
I visit the most respected professors in their fields with people I know who are suffering from ailments and am continuously devastated / bemused / disenchanted when it soon becomes apparent that whilst they may have the most comprehensive knowledge on the topic in the nation , they still know sweet FA and most everything they say is guesswork and approximation.
I’ll take my car to several different mechanics and get several different ideas on what the problem is with my car.
I’ll visit the doctor and listen as he prescribes medication that are of dubious efficacy at best and counterproductive at worst. And I know this because other doctors tell me this is true. So which expert is right and which is wrong ?
I grew up with the belief that an ice age was approaching.
I got told that peak oil was in 1975.
I was told that eggs cause heart disease , sugar is less harmful than fat and being gay is a disease or something you catch by hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Every single day planes crash , bridges collapse, humans perform the previously impossible, nature surprises and ideas deemed irrefutable are contradicted.
Skepticism is healthy and necessary. To be skeptical is not “ adding to the black noise of denial “ , the urge to quell skepticism is nothing more than facistic censorship which , ironically enough , is an ideology the polar opposite of scientific curiosity.
The “ evidence “ as presented above is not conclusive. It is at pains to state that it is not conclusive. The scientist I was discussing the health of the reef stressed the fact that they just don’t know .....more work to be done etc.
This is fine . This is the process of obtaining knowledge. What I rail against is when this inconclusive guesstimate is extrapolated into a platform for the true idealogists amongst us to make their shrill pronouncements as though they are rooted in certainly. It’s the misrepresentation of the science into a weapon to bolster their unsubstantiated claims.
Pretty clear from that link Fitzroy shared that the only truth distorted was from the first scientist saying the reef is dead and this coral doesn't exist there anymore.
And the second scientist goes and films the area showing the exact opposite, then when truth is exposed, they try making all kinds of excuses.
The reality is science on this topic is influenced by outside forces no matter the view, that's the whole problem, funding, job security, money, politics, reputation, yeah sure the fossil fuel industry has a lot to protect, but there is also much money to be made from climate change, and renewables etc
IMHO we are in a pretty farked up time when any scientist with an alternative view or conclusion is labeled a denalist and basically had their career ruined look at what happened to Peter Ridd that shit isn't what science is about, its the total opposite of what science should be about.
To me thats why first hand observation from people like Fitzroy that have lived and breathed things over a long period views are so important, he might not be a scientist but im sure he knows the reef in the areas he works very well, and expect if he saw negative change he would be the first to be concerned.
And what you should be saying, BB , is that despite critical risks facing the reef and the best efforts of science, nothing is set in stone regarding the future of the reef. It’s demise is not guaranteed. The resilience of the reef and it’s ability to overcome and evolve is not comprehensively understood .
Modelled predictions of future outcomes are not inherently factual.
With water security reaching emergency levels , when will the government be held accountable for its reckless immigration policies which are directly exacerbating the situation, if not responsible for the majority of the problem ?
If the government was to embark on a campaign of unrestrained clearfelling or unmitigated overfishing which jeopardised our nation , then they would be accountable and perhaps liable to civil action launched by the Australian people to preserve what’s left of our nation . The undue , unnecessary and reckless contempt for which our government treats water security through their unsustainably high mass immigration Ponzi scheme is no different.
Get ready for debilitating increases in the price of water . The neoliberalism to which both majorly parties are beholden insists that communal ( national ) ownership of anything is unendurable. Everything must be owned by private hands and the very water we all need to survive is being driven towards commodification.
Indo, you really do need to try a bit harder not to be so gullible. Again, one minute search and hey what a surprise ........ the claim is total bullshit.
"A coral scientist whose work is attacked in a mini-documentary from the Institute of Public Affairs says the rightwing thinktank has misrepresented her study.
The IPA says its YouTube film, Beige Reef, is a “must watch” because it shows healthy Acropora corals living at Stone Island, near Bowen. This, the film claims, is in a place where a study published in 2016 claimed all those corals had died.
But Dr Tara Clark, of the University of Wollongong, says the film’s central claim is wrong because her 2016 study did not make any such statement and the IPA’s film had focused on a different location."https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/19/scientist-says-right...
.......so down the rabbit hole again? "You can't believe the Guardian" " Of course she would say that!" Par for the course.
If you want to believe a denialist web site over the highly reputable scientist who did the research then, no offence, but you are beyond help.
BB im one step ahead of you not behind you, i provided that link on the last page with her follow up.
Even if the locations differ slightly the premise of her study do not, the study misleads the public, why is climate change affecting one area of reef but then a stones throw away the reef is healthy?
I guess you could say both are just looking for what they like and not providing the bigger picture, hence why its so important to get views from people like Fitzroy.
Sorry Indo, I missed that one! Nature is the pre-eminent science journal and its reputation rests on the accuracy of its material. In the highly unlikely circumstances that Jennifer Marohasy is correct in her assertion, Nature will either withdraw the paper of publish a correction. As I cannot find any evidence of that happening I will continue to believe the most prestigious science journal on the planet over a non-specialist with a political agenda. If you want to go the other way ........ then as I said before you are beyond help. Your long standing skepticism about climate change is completely unsustainable. I mean, without offence, do you think you know better than the vast majority of specialists in the field? And that you are able to analyse the complex claims and decide that the tiny minority, mostly funded by the fossil fuel industry, are right? Me? I just accept that, amongst independent scientists with the specific expertise, the consensus on climate change is over-whelming. How do you feel about being on the wrong side of history?
"then as I said before you are beyond help. Your long standing skepticism about climate change is completely unsustainable."
You miss spelt understandable.
I will never be on the wrong side of history, because im skeptical but not in denial, i honesty wont be surprised if in 20 years either view is true to a degree, but im going to be really really surprised if the dooms day type predictions are true, history shows they are wrong time and time again even on this issue, dates of prediction on this or that keep on getting moved forward.
IMHO most likely there will be some truth to man made climate change but it will be a fairly moderate effect that will bring negatives and positives depending on location in the world.
Plus im also a supporter of sensible transition to renewables and just people lessening their impact on the environment in general, but im a realist on how these things should be done, luckily our governments are too. (well Shorten wasn't, but im not sure what he is doing now?)
If that is the level of your argument ...... I rest my case........ but it made me laugh!
"You miss spelt understandable."
Comedy gold in a shit-show thread.
Blowin, I’m on the road all day so brief reply ... I also question things but perhaps I’m more willing to accept climate science than you. It’s good to question but my comments were directed to the never-wrongs amongst us who willingly engage in the piss take or outright denial and that feds into what I also referred to ie the deliberate undermining of proper scientific work/evidence demonstrating the climate is changing for the worse.
You know from a pure political point of view the right of politics should be the most risk adverse and conservative side when it comes to climate. In many countries like the UK the science and the debate on both sides is settled but not here. You know the skepticism that people have around this issue could be more vigorously applied to that question: namely, why is it such a left/right issue here? I know you get that but I see Aunt Esme is still pulling his pudd today.
Your right it shouldn't be a right/left issue, the left should also be sceptical too.
But even when we get real life reports on condition of reef from people who should know or real life footage showing things aren't what as they are suggested, somehow people still want to choose to believe the opposite view?
Rather than keeping an open mind and be open to other views and REAL evidence.
BTW doesn't seem settled in USA Trump is quite sceptical even pulled out from Paris agreement .
More food for thought.
WRT the reef, the following seems to encapsulate the issue nicely;
He (Professor Webster) said the rate of change the reef was experiencing was "the real crux of the issue", particularly following the back-to-back coral bleaching events in 2016 and 2017.
"The great fear is if this happens again at the same frequency or increased frequency in the next 10-20 years, that just doesn't allow the reef enough time to recover," he said.
My 2 cents worth is that it is the rate of change that is the real issue across most, if not all, aspects of climate change. In some ways we had better hope that the current change in the climate IS anthropogenic because then we may have some possible hope of doing something to mitigate it. If it's 'natural' then we are truly fucked.
‘IF YOU UNDERSTAND, things are just as they are;
if you do not understand, THINGS ARE JUST AS THEY ARE.’
"But even when we get real life reports on condition of reef from people who should know or real life footage showing things aren't what as they are suggested, somehow people still want to choose to believe the opposite view?"
Indo, this is cherry picking yep you can go out on a boat and find pristine parts of the reef but what does it prove? Not much beyond the fact that it is not yet totally destroyed. Compare that approach to decades of careful surveys over its full length. If you are unable to see the difference between deliberate misinformation and carefully presented analyses of masses of data, then you are stuck so strongly in confirmation bias mode that nothing short of some climate armageddon will change your views. The standards in climate science are probably the highest in any field given the constant attacks upon it. All the technology we use, medical services, transport, weather forecasting, communication etc etc are based on the application of the same principles as climate science. How arrogant to just assert on the basis of trivial bullshit that you don't accept it, that you know more than thousands of scientists who have been working on it for decades. Very sad really to be so out of touch with reality and to leave a record of your ignorance for future generations.
Not everything stacks up, Indo.
I mean, for one, just last week you said it was ridiculous anyone should take news from The Australian seriously, but in this GBR debate you're taking cues from a video made by the IPA who are even further to the right and unashamed in their ideological push.
It's tug and war for either side, but really, toss anything by them in the bin.
With all due respect BB, I'm out here 24/7 for around 8 to 9 months of the year across over 2000km of reefs over 25+ years. I see the pristine to the down right destroyed and everything in between. I have mentioned about watching the recovery of a few areas over years that are a mere example. That is hardly cherry picking. Just an example.
The researchers are lucky to be out for 4-8 weeks at a time maybe twice a year at selected reefs and areas.
I don't know if you have any understanding of how much we work WITH the researchers. Again, one example. During the 80's, the tuna fleet discovered the Lantern Fish aggregation in the Coral Sea, that later carried over to the gamefishing fleet who in turn let the researchers know. In the early 2000's, they secured funding to carry out research into this amazing event. It is an incredible sight to see such a massive collection of pelagic species during this annual event. Much the same as Coral Spawn. Again, boots on the ground witnessing with there own eyes and passing the information on.
I'm off to Number 10 this afternoon and there are a few of us getting excited about the upcoming aggregation. Weather is good and spirits are high as it has been a good season.
I'm obviously not real good at putting my thoughts and what I witness into words that can give some of you an understanding so I'll stay out of this one. Catch you all later.
Just driven through the Latrobe valley for the first time since hazelwood closed down, man the air is so much better than before.
You’re a lucky bloke getting to witness that event, Fitzroy.
Have fun !
And don’t mind BB, he just has an ill-defined definition of an expert. And a lack of understanding of the powers of observation.
If you were to drive to work along the same street for 30 years , BB would still consider you less qualified to comment on the state of the road than a bunch of undergrads performing intermittent and brief visitations over a lesser period of time and who then punched their limited data point findings into a computer model.
And yet .....if you were indigenous, he’d consider you a wise elder and of unimpeachable opinion.
I wouldn't mind being out on the Ribbons right now Fitzy. Are you chasing marlin?
Last week i said
"It's quite obvious to any sane person if you talk to the Australian paper journalist what type of angle they are going to paint."
It was in relation to the angle the Australian took from some guy from Nimbins comments about fires.
Its the same if you had talked to the Guardian, obviously you would know what angle they would take.
Its very easy to manipulate and cherry pick peoples words, but video evidence is not easy to manipulate without totally deceiving by filming in a complete different location or technically manipulating footage.
These two things didn't happen.
Its irrelevant who exposes the the truth, the truth is the truth, large areas of coral reef are healthy in that area, even corals that are said not to be there.
"the truth is the truth"
Not in the media it ain't.
The footage is either from that area or its not, if its from that area then we have been mislead by the original study.
It seems even those from the original study seem to agree the footage is from the same general area, just not the exact location, that sounds like it has been affected by localised factors rather than global factors.
@ FR. Yes. Week 1 of a 4 week "privateers" charter. Without doubt, one of the best gamefishing rigs I have ever had the pleasure of running or working on. It is indeed a tough life!
Sounds like a dream Fitzy, hope the weather's being co-operative.
Hey Fitzy send a photo thru if ya get a chance.........water nice and purple? and whats the water temp at the moment?
Great to see that grub David Leyonhjelm is $120,000 lighter tonight having lost his defamation case against Senator Hanson-Young. A win for decency over crassness and malice .... cue Aunty Esme to defend the indefensible.
Glad your so stoked guysmiley
SHY's actions are just as indefensible, according to some...
you can stick your idea of 'decency'
Thanks sypkan, I’m very stoked about this regardless of what some fringe media outlet says.
Sounds like a very very big can of worms just got opened.
BTW. This is kind of interesting, there building an artificial reef off Torquay for fishing.https://vfa.vic.gov.au/recreational-fishing/recreational-fishing-reefs/t...
Funny how they do this quite often for fishing, but for surfing?....i could never see one getting passed in Vicco.
Omg wtf how can a politician get crowd funded when they earn what they earn!!
And who-the-hell is funding it?
Probly just future bribe artists..
Yeah i just answered my own question lol.
But jeez louise..
Yep , it’s a straight up hit job for a few words spoken .
I can imagine crew queuing up to sink the boot into him , as he’s made many people very unhappy, but for a fellow senator to pass the hat around to subsidise her little vindictive streak is beyond the pale.
She needs a boot in the arse. Whether he does or not is irrelevant to the point that she is acting in a manner unbecoming , even for a person of her status*.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say I don't really get it.
SHY supposedly says something like "all men are rapists" which later can't be proven.
Leyonhjelm says, well if that's the case you're a hypocrite if you're still shagging men.
SHY feels bullies and slut shamed and the win in court is a victory for all women.
Can someone help me out with this or set me straight?
What is this petty schoolyard shit and why is it worth $120k?
Did that feel good Blowin? What a big man you are attacking a woman for sticking up for herself, and winning in Court, for being defamed. Hope no-one ever says your mother or sister or wife or daughter is a slut. How would that make you feel? Would you call the women in your life arseholes that need a kicking if they stood up for themselves? You spend your life, day after day, on this website making, for the most part, stupid fucking comments like the one you made here. What does that say about you and your 'status'?
Indo that man made reef Is awesome. Wonder how it’s going and if it’s been a success?
It's a lot of cash
I'd just like to think she could be doing something better with her time, our time. with all those resources on hand, and she's blowing it on this shit
If the shoe were on the other foot, i'd still be outraged. Male/female Female/male.
In all my 40 years i've only borrowed a significant amount of money ($200) once, off my mum.
Apart from my credit card and mortgage ofcourse..
Its the principle of it.
I'm outraged! #crankeyface
Recommended reading: The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray.
I've got nothinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0FDjFBj8o
Bushfires look like they have calmed down for now on Mid North Coast but the wind forecast for that fire up at New Italy could be hectic today. Northwest then late southerly
Check out the recent pics from divers (click through the pics)https://www.facebook.com/VictorianFisheries/photos/pcb.3348050938598726/...
Already has heaps of weed and sponge or coral looking growth and little fish schooling up around it.